Jitendra Pratap Singh and ors. Vs. 10th Additional District Judge, Allahabad and ors.

- [c.a. vaidialingam; j.m. shelat, jj.] jaora state limitation act 1909 - section 1, 2, article 48 -- since an important amendment of the law of limitation was totally disregarded by the learned single judge, a review of his judgment and decision clearly lay as failure to consider an important provision of law materially affecting the result of the suit would be an error of law apparent on the face of the record the division bench, therefore, was right in entertaining the review petition on the strength of the said circular reversing the decision of the learned single judge.the circular was a legislative act. a ruler of a state enjoyed unlimited sovereign powers including the power to legislate . therefore he had the power to amend or supplement by exercising his power of legislation the existing law within his territory. the circular would be amended to the law of limitation as it existed then. - another important circumstance that is ignored by the prescribed authority was that the lekhapal who had made a spot inspection clearly found that jitendra pratap singh was in possession of the share allotted to him under the declaratory decree......by the fact that in the remarks column possession of appellant jitendra pratap singh was not shown. in our opinion, the prescribed authority ought to have gone into this question in detail in view of there being a declaratory decree under section 229(b) of the u.p. zamindari abolition and land reforms act as to whether or not the decree was a collusive one. normally, a decree passed by a competent court is presumed to be a valid decree unless it is shown to be collusive. in the instant case, however, there are two important considerations which seem to have been overlooked by the courts below : (1) that the decree was passed long before the amendment of 1972 in the ceiling act, and (2) that the declaratory decree was also passed on july 14, 1966 and in the mutation register jitendra pratap singh under the decree was shown as a co-tenure holder with the main tenure holder. another important circumstance that is ignored by the prescribed authority was that the lekhapal who had made a spot inspection clearly found that jitendra pratap singh was in possession of the share allotted to him under the declaratory decree. neither the district judge nor the prescribed authority appear to have considered the effect of this important circumstance.2. in these circumstances therefore we remit the case to the prescribed authority and direct that he should, after hearing the parties and after taking such evidence as is offered by them, come to a clear finding whether or not the declaratory decree was collusive or meant merely to evade the provisions of the ceiling act and whether jitendra pratap singh was in cultivating possession before the amendment of 1972. after giving his findings on these points, the prescribed authority shall submit a report to this court within a month from today. the parties are directed to appear before the prescribed authority on april 9, 1981, failing which the prescribed authority will report the matter to this court for necessary action......